This is hardly a massive risk though; even as standalone businesses, all the acquisitions were already cashflow positive. Management has been very particular about this policy and they've always stuck to it.
Even if the synergies are nowhere near as good as hoped, heck, even if hypothetically there was literally zero synergistic benefit, it's not like they're somehow going to suffer for it, and they're still all cashflow positive entities in a sector we all know is going to massively grow. Unless cybercrime suddenly vanishes (I can't even think of an unrealistic hypothetical which could cause that, other than computers becoming obsolete or us nuking ourselves back to the stone age or something, in which case money doesn't mean anything anyway) it's unrealistic to think that these companies won't grow.
You could argue (I certainly wouldn't) that TNT may pay too much for their acquisitions and get poor value, diluting existing shares so that they don't keep up with the expanding market cap. Okay, I can see what you'd be getting at, but even then, the downside risk is small, you're only losing whatever amount you're being diluted by, and realistically, that's about the extent of downside risk, and it's only an issue in the long term if the largest ASX-listed cybersecurity company fails to manage an appreciable amount of organic growth despite being in an extreme growth sector. Doesn't seem like too scary a risk to me, and of course, the upside is massive.
Expand
